Индексы власти и парадоксы власти в Читинской...

5 3

:

. 50

. ,, – -

– , , – -

, – 1.

--

, -.

, ,.

. -

. -

.. -

N={1, 2, ..., n -. -

. .

. – , . .

- ( , – , – , ), -

. . , -

3- 4- .

The article considers the indexes of power application to the analysis of the ruling structures ofdifferent levels (Banzhaf index, Penrose–Banzhaf index, Deegan–Packel index, Holer index) and theconcept of paradoxes of power. The two approaches to constructing an index of power are used. Thevalues of indexes of power are found; the occurrence of paradoxes of power in the Chita Regional Dumaof 3rd and 4th convocations is investigated.

. G -G=(N, W), W –

, -:

1) W ,2) W ,3) S T S W, T W.

W. , -

W, L. L -. -

– -,

.-

, - – ,

, - – -

. -,

.S – . -

k S , S

. , -, -

5 4

2001 20053 –9 214 93 4– 3

( ) 19 35 (23) 5 (7)

38 40

-. ,

– -, -

– . -, -

-. – ,

-. ,

-,

.

, .-

,

. [q; w1, ..., wn],

q – , ,, wk– (k=1, ..., n).

q w1, ..., wn – -,

S , , ,

q, , . .

– , - (N, W) -

n , k – – , k N

.-

:

G=(N, W) – -Bz(G)=(Bz1(G),…, Bzn(G)), -

(1)

k – ,k .

– , -

-, – PBz(G)=(PBz1(G),…,

PBzn(G)),

(2)

k -, k.

– -G=(N,W) DP(G)=(DPi(G),…,

DPn(G)),

(3)

M -, m –

,s – S.

, - –

, – H(G)=(H1(G),…, Hn(G)) ,

(4)

mk -, -

k.

. 2001 . ( – 2001) 2005 . ( -

– 2005) -:

n

kkwq

1

.0

Skk qwWS .

nkGBzNj j

kk ,...,2,1,

nkGPBzn

k

k

kk ,...,2,1,

2 1

nksm

GDPSkMS

k ,...,2,111;

nkm

mGHNj j

kk ,...,2,1

-

. , ,

5 5

,

; 5 ( 2001 ., 2005 .).

-

, , -

23 2001 . 7 – 2005 .

:

0,789473684 0,052631579 0,0526315792001 0,025134408 0,296271227 0,0877494420 1 02005 0 1 00,9375 0,625 0,6252001 0,05706811 0,672688961 0,1992366310 1 02005 0 1 00,5 0,125 0,1252001 0,044956 0,064735 0,038280 1 0 –

2005 0 1 00,5 0,125 0,1252001 0,04359 0,0533 0,037470 1 02005 0 1 0

0,052631579 0,0526315792001 0,069212789 0,0692127890 02005 0 00,625 0,6252001 0,157148838 0,1571488380 0 –

2005 0 00,125 0,1252001 0,042066 0,0420660 0 –

2005 0 00,125 0,1252001 0,0405 0,04050 02005 0 0

-, (2001 .) ,

« » ;-

, -.

,

, --

, , » , -

. « »,

, -

. (2001 .), . .,

23 , 19 1 , -

5 6

. , , ,

, ,, , -

, ., -

, 2005 . , -

, , .

..

, --

.G=[q; w1, ..., wn] –

,

.

,

(5)

. -, -

, , « »

-, .

G=[q; w1, ..., wn] – -, –

. -,

(6)-

,

, . -

-,

« » , -, . -

, --

.-

. – , t –t. -

-,

:

. – , t –

Pt – t.

, :

(8)

--

, , --

. , -

« » , « » .

.

nwwqG ,...,; 1

n

k k

n

k k ww11

GGwwk kkkk,

11 ,,...,; nn wwwqG

GGNk kk,

tw~

kttktt wwP ~~:1

kttktt wwP ~~:2

tw~

kttkttktt PPwwP ~~:

1 Rusinowska A., van Deemen A. The redistribution paradox and the Paradox of new members in theGerman parliament. Nova Science Publishers, 2004; . . . : -

. .: , « », 1998; , .. 6- . . .: « », 2001.

– – 1 – 1– – 1 – 1– – 1 – 1 –– – 1 – 1– – 1 – 1 – – – 1 – 1– – 1 – 1– – 1 – 1